But is it proposition-proof?

[Smarmie Doofus]

You'd think I'd know since I live here.

And just like me to worry about real and imaginary dark clouds lurking inside that silver lining. Sorry, I can't help myself.


And what about a court challenge?

And what about..... OK, I'll stop. It's a great night.

[TheWraith]

1. We don't have those sorts of ballot propositions in New York State.

Only for amending the state constitution, and even then, it's only possible if the legislature signs off on it, which they never would.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

2. Someone At HuffPost...

was worried about the possibility that the religious exemption amendments could be challenged and if ruled unconstitutional, could possibly put the rest of the bill in jeaopardy.

[TheWraith]

3. If the religious exemptions go down, the entire bill goes down.

That is the one weak point, here: the bill was amended as being a single item, with a legal requirement that if any portion of it is struck down by the courts, the entire bill becomes null and void. This was one of the Republicans' conditions.

Now, I wouldn't put the odds on that too high--the new religious exemption amendments are much more limited than the ones the Republicans were originally pushing. The new language can be read here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58656571/ssmamendment

Unlike the old version, this refers only to religious organizations and religiously-operated non-profit groups, and does NOT include "conscientious objector" type language which basically gave free rein to individuals and regular businesses to discriminate. So, it's much more focused, and more overlap with actual existing law, less of a free-ranging attempt to create legalized discrimination.

All that said, worst case scenario, the odds are only likely to get better from here, so if in a year or two the bill gets struck down, then the odds are that the leg will be in a better position to pass a "clean" version at that time.

[MNBrewer]

6. Apparently there are examples where nonseverability has been ignored by the courts.

And the law has remained in effect, minus the so called "nonseverable" portion.

[TheWraith]

8. I'm not well versed in the precedent on that when it comes to New York law.

I gather that this is fairly rare in NY state, so I can't say with any certainty what would happen, beyond the fact that it was written to stand or fall in it's entirety.

[Meeker Morgan]

4. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

No such propositions in NY, but there will be some sort of push back. Guaranteed.

[yardwork]

5. The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the right-wing Protestant Churches.

These are essentially tax-free corporations that protect their wealth and power by pushing people around. They have a great deal of money - extorted from their followers by threatening them with an eternity in hell - and they use that money to elect politicians to do their bidding.

The churches are threatened by gay rights because this undermines patriarchy. Anything that gives more rights to people living outsides the man-woman "traditional marriage" binary threatens the power of these churches.

There are two things that people can do to reduce the stranglehold these institutions have -

1. Eliminate their tax-exempt status. Recognize them as the corporations that they are and tax accordingly. This is unlikely to happen, as the churches control the politicians.

2. More people need to have the courage to stand up and reject the bullying and fear-mongering of their churches. Most Catholics I know personally are quite progressive about social issues. They believe in human rights. They disagree with their church's stance on this. They need to stand up and insist.

[MNBrewer]

7. I see schisms in the future for lots of denominations

such as the United Methodist Church. It has pro-equality and anti-equality factions that cannot abide in one house much longer.